FAA reports UFO epidemic!! PLUS, a UAP the size of two aircraft carriers??

Britain is GO FOR LAUNCH!! Saxavord receives its range licence from the...

UFO Propulsion discovered? NASA Engineer unveils Antigravity Drive!!

The Triumph Of Ingenuity

Ingenuity The Ingenuity Mars helicopter performed 72 flights over nearly three years. (credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/ASU) The ongoing triumph of Ingenuity by William Pomerantz Monday, April 22, 2024 Bookmark and Share This is my love letter to Ingenuity. I remember when I first heard about the concept of a small helicopter designed to catch a ride with a rover bound for the Martian surface. At the time, my wife worked as part of the “Mars Mafia” at NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory: a wonderful job that meant she got to bring intriguing ideas and fascinating discoveries home from work regularly. My first reaction to the idea of a Martian drone was a quick sequence: No way! Could that even work? There's barely any atmosphere there. But could you imagine if it did work? No one has ever seen anything like that before. That would be incredible! As the landing date for Perseverance and Ingenuity approached, I asked my JPL friends for their guesses as to how many times the helicopter would fly. By far the most common answer was that it would never make it off the ground in one piece. As I learned more about the idea, I marveled at the balance between the simplicity of the overall concept and the complexity of some of the engineering specifics required to make a helicopter fly on a planet where the atmospheric pressure at the surface is only 1% of what it is here on Earth (where it's already extremely challenging to make helicopters fly!). While many people, myself included, were wondering what was possible, small teams at JPL and AeroVironment were creating what was possible. A quick, hardware-rich sprint by a team of incredible engineers, technicians, and project managers allowed the Ingenuity Mars helicopter project to be completed on schedule—words we too rarely get to say in the world of space exploration. As the landing date for Perseverance and Ingenuity approached, I asked my JPL friends for their guesses as to how many times the helicopter would fly. By far the most common answer was that it would never make it off the ground in one piece. Another subset of people thought Ingenuity might fly once or twice. After the nerve-wracking deployment of the helicopter from under the belly of Perseverance, followed by a few weeks of wiggling rotors and commissioning the vehicle, the world was treated to what you see in this GIF: the first aircraft to perform powered, controlled flight on a planet other than Earth. Ingenuity (credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech) This was a “Wright Brothers moment,” happening in our lifetimes, on another world. The impossible becoming possible. A new mode of peaceful exploration, coming online right before our eyes, in glorious full-color video. Over the next three Earth years, Ingenuity would go on to surpass every expectation. From an initial target of five flights and 30 Martian days (sols), Ingenuity achieved 72 flights and about 1,000 sols. Ingenuity flew higher, faster, and further over more hazardous terrain than ever imagined. It returned first-of-its-kind images of the Perseverance rover, its backshell, and more. It gave us up-close images of Martian vistas that we're currently unable to explore by rover or with orbiters. The little helicopter that could survived a Martian winter with barely any damage. Every day, every flight, every image brought us precious new knowledge and expanded the horizons of humanity’s understanding of our closest planetary neighbor. Along the way, some of the rover-centric teammates who had first seen Ingenuity as a distraction came to view the helicopter as an incredible new tool. The operations team is constantly faced with deciding between sending the rover to explore the most interesting territory and avoiding those same areas if the landscape might damage and strand the rover. It’s a tension that the JPL team is extraordinarily good at managing, but a tension nonetheless. If the choice ever became stand down or keep pushing, the team wanted to keep pushing. About 60 flights into Ingenuity’s planned five-flight mission, I had the great honor of joining AeroVironment to run the team responsible for our contributions to Ingenuity and the next generation of Mars helicopters. Ingenuity was still in excellent condition and was responding to every new challenge we gave it, making aerial exploration of Mars seem almost easy. But still, as we started what was effectively our 12th victory lap after a race well run, we knew that every day Ingenuity phoned home was a gift. As I got to know the team at AeroVironment and as I became reacquainted with the JPLers on the mission, one of the questions I asked was how people would like to see the mission end. We all wanted to see Ingenuity complete as many flights as possible; but I wanted to hear what the people who quite literally built Ingenuity thought. Should Ingenuity earn a quiet retirement in some picturesque location? Or should we push the edges of the envelope until at last we ask Ingenuity to do something it can’t manage, and see it fail in flight? I received a range of strongly held responses to my question, but the overwhelming majority of the Ingenuity team was aligned. They reinforced that this mission was designed as a technology demonstration, and the best way to honor the spirit of Ingenuity was to ensure that the vehicle kept teaching us new things about flight on Mars, right up to the end. If the choice ever became stand down or keep pushing, the team wanted to keep pushing. And that’s exactly what happened. After more than 70 flights, we encountered a technical challenge that was simply beyond Ingenuity’s capabilities. The helicopter’s visual navigation system couldn’t distinguish the features of a very monotonous landscape well enough to consistently track them. Lacking that information, the vehicle essentially became confused about where it was and where it was going. As it descended, it may have begun to chase its own shadow. At some point during the flight and landing, Ingenuity sustained significant damage to its rotor blades and yet, somewhat miraculously, it survived that landing and came to rest upright on the Martian surface. Ingenuity is still alive and sending home data from its onboard systems—something it may continue to do for years to come. Perhaps if the Perseverance rover drives back by Valinor Hills Station (Ingenuity’s final airfield, named for Tolkien’s Undying Lands), Ingenuity will be able to phone home again and relay years’ worth of weather data to scientists on Earth. But unfortunately, it will never fly again. Seventy-two flights. More than two hours of flying time. Over 1,000 sols after arriving on Mars. Eleven miles (17.7 kilometers) covered. All this from a helicopter that weathered rocket launch loads, Martian dust storms, and more without a single opportunity for in-person inspection or servicing—something you’d never expect of a helicopter here on Earth. Ingenuity gave us everything we asked for and more. True to its spirit and its mission, even Ingenuity’s final flights have made us smarter. There’s more yet to learn, but from what I’ve seen, I believe the challenge that grounded Ingenuity will be relatively easy to overcome with future Mars helicopters, thanks to what we’ve now learned. Yes, Ingenuity reached a limit; but that limit can and will be conquered. Flight 72 marked an end, but not the end. The true conclusion of the Ingenuity mission will come when its hard-earned lessons are next put into practice by another Mars helicopter, one that will be even more ingenuous than its predecessor, thanks to how much wiser we are after 72 flights. AeroVironment has continued to invest funds and time into dreaming up new capabilities for future Mars helicopters. Engineers at AeroVironment, JPL, and NASA Ames are now thinking about helicopters and other aerial vehicles that could someday carry scientific instruments, fetch sample tubes, or explore difficult to access locations such as valleys and lava tubes. Additionally, elsewhere in the world, others are following Ingenuity’s lead. In 2021, China announced its plans to fly a helicopter on Mars, and more recently, India has revealed more about its plan to fly a Martian helicopter with a variety of weather and atmospheric sensors within the next eight years. With a growing community of international space agencies interested in the exploration of the Red Planet, helicopters may become an affordable and attractive option for space discovery and diplomacy. I believe the impactful legacy of Ingenuity will do for aerial mobility on Mars what Sojourner did for ground mobility. When the Ingenuity mission began, NASA’s leaders often compared it to the Wright Brothers 1903 Flyer—and indeed, Ingenuity carried a small piece of fabric from that historic aircraft to Mars. Now that the Martian equivalent of the Kitty Hawk flight has occurred, the successors to Orville and Wilbur at NASA JPL and AeroVironment are itching to embark on the next great endeavor that will forever change the future of planetary exploration. Planetary exploration helicopters have made their impact and are here to stay, and those in government, academia, and industry who embrace and support the inclusion of these systems in future missions will surely reap the benefits. Another novel forebearer of Ingenuity is Sojourner, the first successful Mars rover. Like Ingenuity, Sojourner was the lighter, smaller vehicle that hitched a ride with another mission to the Red Planet. Both programs had small budgets but delivered huge results. I believe the impactful legacy of Ingenuity will do for aerial mobility on Mars what Sojourner did for ground mobility: leave such an impactful legacy that at every future Martian launch window, and with every future call for proposals, this new form of exploration demonstrated by Ingenuity is considered a critical enabling technology for future discovery. As Ingenuity’s flying campaign comes to an end, and as the era of aerial Mars exploration begins in earnest, my hat is off to the people who made this possible, including brilliant NASA and JPL colleagues like Bob Balaram, Charles Elachi, Mimi Aung, Robert Hogg, Bobby Braun, Theodore (Teddy) Tzanetos, Håvard Grip, and more, and AeroVironment colleagues Matt Keennon, Benjamin Pipenberg, Sara Langberg, Jeremy Tyler, Joey Beckman, and more. Humanity’s best machines reflect the care, cleverness, and curiosity of their makers—and with Ingenuity, each of you has proven to be truly world-class. Ingenuity A mosaic shows the final resting place of Ingenuity (right) as well as one of rotor blades. [larger version] (credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/LANL/CNES/CNRS) Will Pomerantz is an aerospace executive with two decades of experience in the entrepreneurial and non-profit sectors. He currently serves as the Head of Space Ventures at AeroVironment. He is also the co-founder of the Brooke Owens Fellowship and the Patti Grace Smith Fellowship, two award-winning mentorship and work experience programs focused on enabling more undergraduates to pursue successful aerospace careers.

Tintin The First Man In Space

Tintin, the first man in space and on the Moon by Anusuya Datta Monday, April 22, 2024 Bookmark and Share April 12 is a historic day for the space industry. On this day back in 1961, Russian cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first human in space. Not to be left behind, the United States sent its first man into space in less than a month—Alan Shepard on May 5—thus sparking the famous space race between the two Cold War superpowers. December 1968 saw the launch of Apollo 8, the first manned space mission to orbit the Moon, and about seven months later Americans Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin made the historic Moon landing on July 20, 1969. But everyone knows all this, and that’s not the story. What many don’t know is that super hack Tintin was way ahead of both the superpowers in flying to space as well as landing on Moon. Yes, we are talking about the Belgian boy with a tuft of ginger hair. But how did Hergé anticipate the lunar adventure with such precision, especially coming so many years ahead of an actual man in space, let alone a Moon landing? For the uninitiated, Belgian cartoonist Georges Remi, popularly known as Hergé, created the iconic character Tintin, whose adventures have captivated readers all over the world for the past 80 years. The series stands as one of the most beloved European comics of the 20th century, translated into more than 50 languages and selling over 200 million copies worldwide, and even inspiring a film adaptation by Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson. Hergé’s Explorers on the Moon was published in Le Journal Tintin in 1950. This first part was retitled as Destination Moon and published in 1953, followed by Explorers on the Moon in 1954. So technically, Tintin made the Moon landing in 1950, 19 years before Armstrong. Who would have imagined reading the book in 1950—when Tintin exclaims after taking a few steps on lunar surface, “I have taken a few steps. For the first time certainly in the history of mankind, there is an explorer on the Moon!”—that another man would utter almost similar words 19 years later: “That’s one small step for (a) man, one giant leap for mankind”? And this time for real! Tintin But how did Hergé anticipate the lunar adventure with such precision, especially coming so many years ahead of an actual man in space, let alone a Moon landing? The Tintin Moon adventure has been widely acclaimed by critics for its exceptional attention to technical detail, with many hailing it as a masterpiece for its uncannily accurate portrayal of lunar landscapes and space exploration. It’s intriguing that, unlike Hergé’s earlier works, the Moon series, in his own words, didn’t have any “moonmen, monsters, or incredible surprises.” That way it’s fascinating how a renowned children’s comic book author would transition to science fiction while maintaining a fervent commitment to realism and accuracy. For his tale on the lunar adventure to be a success, Hergé understood it was crucial to ground the space journey in scientific fact. Some believe Hergé's foray into science fiction could have been prompted by his friendly competition with colleague Edgar P. Jacobs, who introduced his own science fiction comic, The Secret of the Swordfish, in 1950. Beyond this rivalry, Hergé is also believed to have drawn inspiration from Jules Verne's 1870 novel Around the Moon and the 1950 American film Destination Moon. For his tale on the lunar adventure to be a success, Hergé understood it was crucial to ground the space journey in scientific fact. He carefully eliminated anything fanciful or unrealistic from the script and conducted extensive research on rockets and space travel. He is said to have received help from his friend Bernard Heuvelmans, author of the non-fiction work L’Homme parmi les étoiles (Man Among the Stars). Additionally, he initiated correspondence with Alexander Ananoff, author of L’Astronautique, a book on space travel. During this period, Hergé also visited the Center for Atomic Research at the Ateliers de Constructions Electriques de Charleroi. Notably, he commissioned the construction of a small rocket model, which he presented to Ananoff for validation of its realism as a representation of a moon rocket. Subsequently, Hergé utilized this model for precise sketches when producing the comic. Naturally, all this research showed up in the final product. The computer system at the Sprodj Space center in the made-up country of Syldavia looked a lot like UNIVAC I, the first commercially produced general-purpose electronic digital computer designed for business applications in the United States. Tintin's Moon rocket seemed to have been inspired by the V-2 rocket, the first long-range missile made by the Germans during World War II. It’s hard to miss the similarity between the red-and-white checkered pattern on Hergé’s rocket and the black-and-white pattern on V-2. Tintin The resemblance between the red-and-white checkered pattern adorning Hergé’s rocket and the black-and-white design of the V-2 rocket is unmistakable. In both books, Hergé seamlessly integrates elements of real science, infusing the adventures with a sense of authenticity. From the meticulously detailed space suits to the innovative use of atomic motors and rocket thrusters for navigation, the description of space exploration in the book reflects a deep respect for scientific principles. Tintin The portrayal of weightlessness in space, along with the humorous inclusion of whiskey bubbles, adds a sense of fun to the story while maintaining its realism. Tintin Who would have thought about the concept of viewing Earth as a 3D sphere more than 50 years before Google Earth! Hergé even goes as far as to suggest that water exists under the Moon’s surface. Till a few years ago, you would have laughed it off as fiction. As pointed out by literary critic Jean-Marie Apostolidès in The Metamorphoses of Tintin, there was a notable departure from the conventional “good vs. evil” narrative seen in Hergé’s earlier works. Instead, a new theme emerged: the struggle between “truth and error” as the lunar adventure takes on a mystical quality guided by scientific principles. The Metamorphoses of Tintin is the English translation of the first critical examination of the iconic Tintin cartoons where Apostolidès delved into character evolution and unveiled the cohesive vision underlying Hergé’s masterpiece. There was a notable departure from the conventional “good vs. evil” narrative seen in Hergé’s earlier works. Instead, a new theme emerged: the struggle between “truth and error”. Adding to the delight throughout the lunar adventure is Hergé’s signature humor, infusing the narratives with wit and charm, while his creation of lovable and awe-inspiring characters further enriches the storytelling experience. Destination Moon and Explorers on the Moon are not only masterpieces in storytelling but also serve as valuable lessons in the art of balancing serious themes with lighthearted comedy. Despite its Belgian origins, the Tintin series has garnered immense popularity and recognition worldwide, transcending cultural barriers, captivating readers from diverse backgrounds. The series has sparked imaginations across generations, instilling a sense of wonder and excitement for the unknown. Tintin and his friends (including the snow-white Snowy) were as inspiring for our generation, and perhaps the one before that, till Harry Potter came in. After all, the boy with a tuft of ginger hair who “always did the right thing”, had gone, to borrow the Star Trek line, “where no man had gone before”. [This article was earlier published on the author’s Medium account.] Anusuya Datta is a writer/journalist with a keen interest in Earth observation and sustainability issues. She is also part of the EO4SDG board and has delivered guest lectures at the University of British Columbia’s school of journalism on using satellite imagery in storytelling.

Book Review: "Still As Bright"

book cover Review: Still As Bright by Jeff Foust Monday, April 22, 2024 Bookmark and Share Still As Bright: An Illuminating History of the Moon, from Antiquity to Tomorrow by Christopher Cokinos Pegasus Books, 2024 hardcover, 448 pp., illus. ISBN 978-1-63936-569-2 US$35 Early in his new book Still As Bright, Christopher Cokinos writes that, like so many boys in the early Space Age, he dreamed of becoming an astronaut after first becoming an Air Force pilot, even joining the Civil Air Patrol. “To this day, I remember Miss Hawk literally pulling me out of advanced algebra, though I don’t know why,” he writes, “and by the next class I was in remedial math, resigned, overnight, to never having wings pinned on a uniform.” This book is, on one level, a history of our studies of the Moon, as its subtitle suggests, but interwoven in those chapters is the author’s own experiences related to the Moon. He instead became a writer and English professor (including essays published here) but with an interest in the night sky, and specifically the Moon, that continued through his adult life. “The Moon is a provocation for culture, art, and science,” he writes in the prologue of the book, an examination of the Moon and our relationship with it, as our interest in exploring and perhaps one day living on it grows. It is similar in its themes, but different in approach, to Rebecca Boyle’s Our Moon (see “Review: Our Moon”, The Space Review, April 1, 2024) published earlier this year This book is, on one level, a history of our studies of the Moon, as its subtitle suggests. He explores various aspects of our changing understanding of the Moon over the centuries, from efforts centuries ago to map the lunar surface and name its features to the Apollo missions that walked on that surface. He explores in detail some specific topics, like the study of, and controversy surrounding, transient lunar phenomena that could be evidence of ongoing lunar activity—if such phenomena exist—as well as the special attention that the Apollo 15 crew gave to their geologic training ahead of their mission, which paid off for the astronauts and the scientists alike. Interwoven in those chapters is the author’s own experiences related to the Moon, from childhood to the present day; a memoir of sorts. Much of that revolves around observing the Moon, from childhood attempts using a small telescope called a Space Conqueror (a copy of which he finds in a thrift store decades later and restores) to larger telescopes he owns. Late in the book, he visits Mt. Wilson and observes the Moon through the 60-inch telescope there. The thrill of seeing the Moon up close comes though those pages. Still As Bright and Our Moon are complementary to each other, taking different approaches to exploring the Moon and humanity’s relationship with it, as well as the authors’ own perspectives. Those perspectives are continuing to evolve. While Cokinos gave up on his dreams of becoming an astronaut in school, last month he commanded a lunar mission of sorts: a six-day analog lunar mission organized by the University of Arizona in a habitat at Biosphere 2, part of a crew that included a poet, textile artist, and dancer/choreographer. Asked afterwards if he would be willing to go to the Moon, he responded, “I would do it in a heartbeat.” Jeff Foust (jeff@thespacereview.com) is the editor and publisher of The Space Review, and a senior staff writer with SpaceNews. He also operates the Spacetoday.net web site. Views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author alone.

UFO Discussion! What is the Pentagon NOT telling us about UAPs?

What Happened to the CHARIOT from Lost in Space?

For All Mankind Renewed With Fascinating Spin Off Star City

Apple renews globally acclaimed, hit space drama “For All Mankind” for season five and announces new spinoff series “Star City” Thrilling new spinoff series from Sony Pictures Television and Apple explores the world of the Soviet space program, and hails from award-winning “For All Mankind” creators Ben Nedivi, Matt Wolpert and Ronald D. Moore PRESS RELEASE April 17, 2024 “For All Mankind” key art “For All Mankind” will return for a fifth season alongside new spinoff series “Star City” on Apple TV+. Following its critically acclaimed fourth season, which has been praised as “the best-written show on all of television” and “superior sci-fi,” Apple TV+’s hit, award-winning space drama series “For All Mankind” has landed a renewal for season five. Additionally, Apple TV+ and “For All Mankind” creators Ronald D. Moore, Matt Wolpert and Ben Nedivi will expand the “For All Mankind” universe with a brand-new spinoff series, “Star City,” which will be showrun by Nedivi and Wolpert. Both series are produced for Apple TV+ by Sony Pictures Television. “Our fascination with the Soviet space program has grown with every season of ‘For All Mankind,’” said executive producers Wolpert and Nedivi. “The more we learned about this secret city in the forests outside Moscow where the Soviet cosmonauts and engineers worked and lived, the more we wanted to tell this story of the other side of the space race. We could not be more excited to continue building out the alternate history universe of ‘For All Mankind’ with our partners at Apple and Sony.” “With each new season, ‘For All Mankind’ continues to build out a fascinating world and capture global audiences through high quality storytelling that has been so skillfully developed by Ron, Matt and Ben,” said Matt Cherniss, head of programming for Apple TV+. “There is so much to explore, and we, along with our partners at Sony, can’t wait to dive into this next chapter of the engrossing ‘For All Mankind’ universe.” A robust expansion of the “For All Mankind” universe, “Star City” is a propulsive, paranoid thriller that takes us back to the key moment in the alt-history retelling of the space race — when the Soviet Union became the first nation to put a man on the moon. But this time, we explore the story from behind the Iron Curtain, showing the lives of the cosmonauts, the engineers and the intelligence officers embedded among them in the Soviet space program, and the risks they all took to propel humanity forward. “Star City” is created by Wolpert, Nedivi, and Moore. Nedivi and Wolpert serve as showrunners and executive produce alongside Moore and Maril Davis of Tall Ship Productions. Since its global debut, “For All Mankind” has been widely acclaimed as “one of the best shows on television,” and season four holds a perfect 100% Certified Fresh score on Rotten Tomatoes. “For All Mankind” is created by Emmy Award winner Moore, and Emmy nominees Wolpert and Nedivi. Wolpert and Nedivi serve as showrunners and executive produce alongside Moore and Davis of Tall Ship Productions, as well as David Weddle, Bradley Thompson, Seth Edelstein and Kira Snyder. “For All Mankind” is produced for Apple TV+ by Sony Pictures Television. The latest season of “For All Mankind” rocketed the series into the new millennium. In the eight years since season three, Happy Valley has rapidly expanded its footprint on Mars by turning former foes into partners. It’s now 2003, and the focus of the space program has turned to the capture and mining of extremely valuable, mineral-rich asteroids that could change the future of both Earth and Mars. But simmering tensions between the residents of the now-sprawling international base threaten to undo everything they are working toward. All four seasons of “For All Mankind” are now streaming globally on Apple TV+. Apple TV+ offers premium, compelling drama and comedy series, feature films, groundbreaking documentaries, and kids and family entertainment, and is available to watch across all of a user’s favorite screens. After its launch on November 1, 2019, Apple TV+ became the first all-original streaming service to launch around the world, and has premiered more original hits and received more award recognitions faster than any other streaming service in its debut. To date, Apple Original films, documentaries and series have been honored with 482 wins and 2,142 award nominations and counting, including multi-Emmy Award-winning comedy “Ted Lasso” and historic Oscar Best Picture winner “CODA.” About Apple TV+ Apple TV+ is available on the Apple TV app in over 100 countries and regions, on over 1 billion screens, including iPhone, iPad, Apple TV, Apple Vision Pro, Mac, popular smart TVs from Samsung, LG, Sony, VIZIO, TCL and others, Roku and Amazon Fire TV devices, Chromecast with Google TV, PlayStation and Xbox gaming consoles, and at tv.apple.com, for $9.99 per month with a seven-day trial. For a limited time, customers who purchase and activate a new iPhone, iPad, Apple TV, Mac or iPod touch can enjoy three months of Apple TV+ for free.* For more information, visit apple.com/tvpr and see the full list of supported devices. *Special offer is good for three months after the first activation of the eligible device. One offer per Family Sharing group. Plans automatically renew until cancelled. Other restrictions and terms apply; visit apple.com/promo for more information.

NASA canceling Moon landing for Artemis 3! PLUS - Starship Update!!

SpaceX Starship Expectations vs. Reality: Is There a Problem?

My space news report from JAPAN!

Three scary asteroids that NASA isn't talking about!

Trump Has MAJOR MELTDOWN over Jury Selection

Tom Mueller explains why Elon Musk hired him

A Review Of Lisa Kaltenegger's Alien Earths

reviews, news & interviews Lisa Kaltenegger: Alien Earths: Planet Hunting in the Cosmos review – a whole new world Kaltenegger's traverses space in her thoughtful exploration of the search for life among the stars by Jon TurneyThursday, 18 April 2024ShareFacebookTwitterEmail Author Lisa Kaltenegger watches the skies Our home planet orbits the medium-size star we call the Sun. There are unfathomably many more stars out there. We accepted that these are also suns a little while back, cosmically speaking, or a few hundred of our human years ago. Ever since, in imagination, we have supplied other stars with planets, and planets with life. Science, so far, has lagged behind fiction. That may be about to change. The known universe has grown almost unimaginably larger since the time of Galileo. That feels like it should increase the chance there is something else alive out there, somewhere. But how to really detect that life, in the regrettable absence of any obvious attempts by other intelligences to communicate? It makes sense to work in stages. Find other stars with planets, or exoplanets in current jargon. Determine that some of those planets are Earth-like, on the grounds that our current sample of one has yielded all our current knowledge about how life began, evolves and behaves. Focus on the Earth-a-likes, and search for chemical signatures of the kinds of life we know, or can imagine. The first two tasks have become possible pretty recently, with spectacular results. The latest telescopes can detect the minute differences in light from a star when a planet passes in front of it. At first, the finds were all large, like our vast neighbour Jupiter, and very close to their governing star. But now we can register smaller planets - and the tally includes bodies that combine the right distance from a star of bearable intensity with a gravity strong enough to retain an atmosphere, if there is one, to qualify as Earth-like. Alien EarthsIt takes time to survey stars this way, but the likely numbers are extraordinary. The Kepler space telescope, launched in 2009, surveyed a few hundred thousand stars, with results indicating that there are more planets than stars in our galaxy. A fair proportion of them are small, rocky objects in the “Goldilocks zone”, neither too hot nor too cold to retain liquid water. As there are two hundred billion stars in the Milky Way, it is tempting to conclude now that it is odds on some of them shine on living planets. (There are, of course, billions more galaxies, but the others are too far away for Earth-bound astronomers to dissect in this fashion). But what about the clincher: actual signs of life? As we’re confined to observation from a vast distances, we’ll still be going by appearances - or the sophisticated variants of that method that go under the heading of spectroscopy. How, exactly, does a planet look? That is, when a planet reflects its own starlight, what proportions of what wavelengths of radiation might be discernible? Lisa Kaltenegger calls this a “light fingerprint”. Kaltenegger is director of the helpfully named Carl Sagan Institute to Search for Life in the Cosmos at Cornell University. Her book follows from her job description. Her own work has concentrated on synthesising information from any disciplines that seem relevant to the question. That includes study of the history of our own living planet, from geology and evolutionary biology. They show that conditions here in the past were quite unlike those we enjoy today, and that life can exist in forms very different from the ones we think of as typical on Earth. Add the data gleaned from space probes that have sent close-ups of the other planets – and their moons – in our own system and careful analysis can produce a typology of possible planetary environments, and what the kind of life they might support would look like from a very, very long way away. It is still partly work that rests on disciplined imagination, in other words, but yields computer models of possible worlds that can be used as guides to observation of the ever rising number of known exoplanets. Kaltenegger gives many detailed examples of the planetary environments that might arise out there, and how to recognise them, along with vignettes from her career and more astringent recollections of her progress as a woman in a largely male enterprise. This is her first book, and she delivers a very competent popularisation of her work that assumes no prior knowledge at all. It is indeed an excellent update on alien earths, and there is a lot to get up to date with. Still, our knowledge has key limitations, and the book is more about the (possible) earths than the aliens. Which raises a small doubt about a premise common to such accounts. Confirming the existence of life on other planets, they say, would change everything. Kaltenegger, who is properly cautious about what we know, or can know, most of the time, adopts the party line here. “Discovering life on another planet”, she writes, “would forever revolutionise our entire worldview.” Well, perhaps. I would certainly love to still be around when we have a clearer view of whether there is other life out there - and already planned astronomy projects may well give us that in the next decade or three. And it’s true, in a sense, that it would be a big change. We would be able to move on from one portion of what I think of as the minimal summary of what we know about the universe. We know, I reckon, that there is stuff. And we know that there is at least one small corner of this galaxy where stuff can self-organise cleverly enough to inflate a small bubble of consciousness, which then wonders how it got here. For now, anybody who wants to go beyond that is moving into speculation. The enterprise Kaltenegger works at so determinedly aims to alter that “at least one”. And we are indeed intriguingly poised at a time when there may be hard evidence of life emerging more than once, in the near future. But if we, the living, are not alone, that raises more questions that will remain hard to answer. Earth history indicates that life appeared rapidly, geologically-speaking, but then stayed simple for a billion years or more. Is the leap to more complexity than bacteria and viruses can sustain, then to multicellular creatures, always so difficult? What are the chances of intelligence emerging after that? And, if there are intelligent aliens, might we ever communicate with them, or even go visiting? Simply increasing the number of living worlds we think we know about from one to two, or even many, isn’t much help with these harder questions (though galactic distances mean the answer to the last pair is very likely to be, “no chance”). So let’s not get too excited about the undoubted progress that’s been made toward identifying life on other, real planets in our galaxy. But progress there has been, and that itself is remarkable enough to make this lively account of where that work stands a rewarding read. Alien Earths: Planet Hunting in the Cosmos by Lisa Kaltenegger (Allen Lane, £25) More book reviews on theartsdesk @jonturney.bsky.social

Lockheed Martin has a crashed UFO! Pentagon Whistleblower provides new ...

SpaceX's Announced Starship Upgrades are Ludicrous and Awesome!

Billionaire's Ambitious Space Dream Gone Wrong! | Mayday Air Disaster

Farrah The Super Star Satellite

FARRAH model Half-sized model of the FARRAH signals intelligence satellite in the restoration hangar at the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center near Dulles International Airport outside Washington, DC. The first FARRAH satellite was launched in 1982 and used to detect ground, and possibly sea-based radars. The way the satellite appears here is similar to how it would orbit the Earth, with the direction of flight for the rotating satellite to the left. The satellite spun at greater than 50 revolutions per minute, sweeping its antennas across the face of the Earth below. (credit: author’s photo) FARRAH, the superstar satellite by Dwayne A. Day Monday, April 15, 2024 Bookmark and Share The Smithsonian’s Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center, located near Dulles International Airport outside of Washington, DC, has a large viewing gallery overlooking its restoration hangar. Whereas some museum artifacts spend years in the restoration hangar, many others cycle through quickly for a cleaning and minor repair work before returning to storage or display. Recently a surprising one showed up in the hangar, a half-scale model of a formerly top-secret signals intelligence satellite from the Cold War known as FARRAH. FARRAH was named after actress Farrah Fawcett, who rocketed to fame in the late 1970s after appearing on a poster in a swimsuit and then being cast as one of the angels in the popular TV show “Charlie’s Angels.” Unlike Farrah Fawcett, whose poster reportedly sold six million copies, no previous images of a FARRAH satellite have been released, so this was the satellite’s first public, albeit low-key, debut, 42 years after it was launched. Unlike Farrah Fawcett, whose poster reportedly sold six million copies, no previous images of a FARRAH satellite have been released, so this was the satellite’s first public, albeit low-key, debut, 42 years after it was launched. At least two and possibly up to five FARRAH satellites were built, starting in the early 1980s. They were among the last in the family of Program 989 satellites that operated in low Earth orbit and primarily detected signals emitted from Soviet ground-based radars. Program 989 started in the early 1960s under a different designation and satellites continued to operate probably until 2007, with about three dozen launched over 30 years. Most of the satellites were about the size of a large suitcase with multiple deployed antennas from their sides. They were ejected from other satellites soon after those satellites reached their operational orbits. The last few Program 989 satellites—possibly still using the FARRAH designation—were apparently much larger, shaped like tuna cans, and initially scheduled for launch from the Space Shuttle but later shifted to a few Titan II launches before the program ended in the early 1990s. The number of P-989 satellites launched per year was never high, peaking at four in 1968 and another four in 1969. After that, the launches dropped significantly. There was one launched in 1971, two in 1972, one in 1973, two in 1974, and then one each in 1976, 1978, and 1979. The satellites had code names like MABELI, RAQUEL, and URSULA. (See “Big bird, little bird: chasing Soviet anti-ballistic missile radars in the 1960s,” The Space Review, December 14, 2020.) When first developed, they stored their collected signals on tape recorders and played them back over American ground stations. The data was analyzed over weeks or even months to determine the characteristics of Soviet radars. In the early 1970s, URSULA was modified to make it more useful to tactical forces, and the later satellites, such as FARRAH, incorporated a direct downlink capability so that they did not have to record their signals for later playback. Assuming a single satellite constellation, the satellites had a lifetime of at least two to three years by the late 1970s, but this apparently increased significantly with later satellites. Snooping on signals The FARRAH I satellite was launched in 1982, deployed off the side of a massive HEXAGON photo-reconnaissance satellite and boosted into a higher orbit with a small rocket motor. The satellite spun at greater than 50 revolutions per minute, sweeping its antennas across the face of the Earth. FARRAH II was deployed in 1984 off the side of the nineteenth HEXAGON satellite launched, the last HEXAGON to reach orbit. An official history indicated that FARRAH I was still operational by the mid-1990s after more than a decade in orbit, but amateur ground observers noted that both satellites maintained their rotation rates until 2007 and then started to slowly spin down until they stopped spinning entirely by 2011, implying that they were each operational for more than two decades. (See “Little Wizards: Signals intelligence satellites during the Cold War,” The Space Review, August 2, 2021.) The exact missions performed by the FARRAH satellites are still classified, although by the late 1970s they were being used by the United States Army as part of a relatively new program known as TENCAP, for Tactical Exploitation of National CAPabilities. The specific Army program was known as the Tactical ELINT Processor/Tactical Unit Terminal system, or TEP/TUT, which had a unit logo featuring King Tutankhamun. TEP/TUT was a system mounted in vans and trailers that could be deployed with Army units in places such as West Germany and South Korea. FARRAH and other satellites could detect Soviet mobile air defense radar emitters. The mobile radars would guide vehicle-mounted missiles to shoot down American planes and helicopters. The satellite data would be processed by the ground system and distributed to Army commanders. The exact missions performed by the FARRAH satellites are still classified, although by the late 1970s they were being used by the United States Army as part of a relatively new program known as TENCAP. TENCAP was an increasingly expensive effort to bring “national level” intelligence collection systems that had previously served leaders such as the president, Pentagon, and intelligence officials, to directly support troops in the field. (See “From the sky to the mud: TENCAP and adapting national reconnaissance systems to tactical operations,” The Space Review, June 19, 2023.) FARRAH and similar satellites could fly over places such as Eastern Europe and nearly instantly provide useable intelligence to Army units in Germany. RAQUEL, URSULA, and FARRAH were all named for American actresses. Soon after Ronald Reagan became president, an official briefed him on American intelligence satellites. The person in charge of Program 989 was concerned that he would have to rename the satellites if Reagan objected—this would be expensive, because the names were included in computer programs. But when Reagan saw the names, he laughed and said that he knew those actresses, the names were fine. The half-size FARRAH model in the Udvar-Hazy restoration hangar looks similar to photos of the earlier URSULA satellites deployed during the 1970s, with some apparent changes to the antenna configuration. When the Smithsonian’s downtown Washington National Air and Space Museum fully reopens in a few years, the FARRAH model will go on display. Farrah Fawcett This poster adorned the wall of many American teenage boys in the 1970s, becoming the best-selling poster of all time. It also inspired somebody in the National Reconnaissance Office to name a satellite after Farrah Fawcett. Dwayne Day is interested in hearing from anybody with more information on the FARRAH satellites. He can be reached at zirconic1@cox.net.

Zero Gravity Regulations

Zero-gravity regulations by David Gillette and Emma Rohrbach Monday, April 15, 2024 Bookmark and Share Journalists have filled headlines about the “ultrarich” taking costly field trips to outer space. The issue of space tourism, seemingly frivolous to some, provides important insights into US regulations on innovation (see “The normalization of space tourism,” The Space Review, October 18, 2021.) For 20 years, the US government took a laissez-faire approach to regulating space tourism. The planned sunsetting of the “learning period” section of the US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015 signaled a new age of regulatory hurdles. Markets have responded positively to the boom in space innovation, but can the industry continue to flourish under oncoming regulations? Though members of Congress develop regulations to reduce risk, safety is already one of the pivotal interests of space tourism companies; without it, they would not have a customer base, particularly not any repeat customers. In the early 2000s, space industry growth took off, as did concern in Congress about private companies’ ability to operate and innovate under regulatory barriers. In an unusual step for the US federal government, Congress passed the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act in 2004, reducing regulatory pressure on the fledgling space tourism industry. Some of the law’s key elements were the streamlining of regulatory authority on space tourism to one entity, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the establishment of a moratorium on safety regulations for commercial space passengers. Government officials argued they did not have enough information to create appropriate and effective regulations and took a step back. The bill imposed an “informed consent” framework on companies, like the agreements in activities like skydiving. Beyond that, companies could operate relatively freely when sending non-astronaut civilians into space. Congress renewed the moratorium in 2015 but planned for it to sunset in October 2023 after the FAA and RAND Corporation reported they had gathered enough information about space tourism to begin making regulations for the safety of commercial spaceflight participants. (There have been several short-term extensions of the learning period, now to early May, as Congress works on a long-term FAA reauthorization bill.) Last summer, after the release of the RAND report, the FAA established a group to begin generating formal commercial spaceflight standards in preparation for the bill’s sunset. The FAA views these safety standards as essential to the industry’s continued growth. Regulations will likely focus on the areas of informed consent, training guidelines, medical screening, commercial liability, and accident investigation jurisdiction. During the moratorium, the FAA actively promoted the development of voluntary consensus standards among private companies and plans to incorporate these elements of consensus into the new regulations. However, planning to regulate suggests an insincere faith in the ability of the private sector to “govern” itself and opens up the opportunity for regulatory capture. Though members of Congress develop regulations to reduce risk, safety is already one of the pivotal interests of space tourism companies; without it, they would not have a customer base, particularly not any repeat customers. Past experience has already shown that regulations do not eliminate all risks or tragedies. Both business and government care about passenger safety; the question lies in which entity can best ensure it. New innovations mean, as one report stated, “a ride on SpaceX’s Crew Dragon capsule is about three times safer than a ride on NASA’s space shuttle was in the final years of its operation.” Even though passengers under the moratorium made their own informed-consent decisions about commercial space travel, the FAA still required spacecraft to undergo an approval process to carry human passengers. With some peace of mind about safety, the full scope of the regulation issue can be better understood. Key players in the space industry decry the potential end of the moratorium and point out ways their industry already bears heavy non-safety related regulation. For instance, Bill Gerstenmaier, SpaceX’s Vice President of Build and Flight Reliability, noted, “Licensing, including environmental approval, often takes longer than rocket development.” He added, “We should be the ones that are driving the development, not being driven by regulatory oversight.” The business community fears increased regulatory hurdles. If an absence of regulations turbo-launched space tourism innovation, how might the maritime, rail, and medical fields similarly benefit? In contrast, A RAND Corporation representative pointed out the rarity of the moratorium, stating, “It’s not something that other domains have had — aeronautics, maritime, rail, medical — yet those industries are also competitive.” Yet, how much more innovation might we have had in those industries under a more voluntary regulatory approach? Consumers in the domains mentioned by the RAND representative have experienced benefits from deregulation, such as the airline industry in 1978, the railroad industry in 1980, and the significantly more complicated telecommunications industry. Reduced regulations aided impressive advancements in space tourism, while companies voluntarily followed and advanced time-tested safety practices. The Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act produced a valuable controlled experiment. Regulations cover most activities in the industry, with only the area of space tourism left partially unregulated. The example of established, heavily regulated industries should not be used to justify increasing regulation on the nascent space industry. Instead, consider what policymakers can learn from this recent experiment. If an absence of regulations turbo-launched space tourism innovation, how might the maritime, rail, and medical fields similarly benefit? Hausman and Taylor argue, “Facilities-based [firm level] imperfect competition (and it can be highly imperfect) provides greater consumer welfare than imperfect “regulation forever.” With this argument in mind, new guidelines warrant concern. As history demonstrates, the regulation process is slow, and once created, regulations persist almost indefinitely. For example, in the intensely weakened maritime industry, the century-old Jones Act has seen almost no significant changes despite numerous reform attempts. New guidelines on space tourism will undergo an approximately five-year approval process with finalized guidelines anticipated in 2028 and implementation and enforcement lags to follow. Keeping up with guideline development will be crucial for companies competing in the industry, adding further costs and hindrances to innovation in space technology. Members of Congress should return to encouraging voluntary consensus standards among private companies instead of imposing blanket regulatory standards. Rather than ending the successful unregulated “learning period” for improving commercial spaceflight, Congress should expand this moratorium to other elements of the still burgeoning space industry, such as launch regulations and beyond. Instead of responding to imagined or precautionary risk scenarios, members of Congress should acknowledge the innovation and norm development already present in the successful private space industry as a testament to the power of taking a backseat on regulatory affairs whether in space, on land, or at sea. Giving innovators room to breathe absent extreme regulatory pressure would keep a new era of groundbreaking innovation in orbit, providing new opportunities for US and global citizens alike. David Gillette is a Professor of Economics at Truman State University. He regularly coordinates a speaker series and readings groups where students explore areas of interest not addressed in the mainstream economics curriculum. He enjoys researching and writing with students on a variety of topics of mutual interest. Emma Rohrbach is a student at Truman State University studying Economics and Political Science. Outside of class, she chairs an environmental project committee for Truman’s Student Government and works as a research assistant in the Economics Department. She is especially interested in innovation and the new frontiers of business.

Lunar Rover Racing

lunar rover The Lunar Dawn rover, proposed by a team led by Lunar Outpost, is among the three selected by NASA for its Lunar Terrain Vehicle program. (credit: Lockheed Martin) Lunar rover racing by Jeff Foust Monday, April 15, 2024 Bookmark and Share When NASA returns astronauts to the Moon later this decade, they will be hoofing it. On the Artemis 3 and, perhaps, Artemis 4 missions, the astronauts will be limited like the early Apollo missions to terrain they can access on foot. That also means they will be limited in the equipment they can carry, and the samples they can gather, to what they can hold in their hands. That will change with later Artemis missions. Indeed, by the early 2030s, if plans announced this month come to fruition, they will have their choice of vehicles for traversing the lunar terrain. One vehicle, to be developed commercially, will be an analog to the lunar rover used on the later Apollo missions, although with substantial upgrades in capabilities. The other will be the lunar equivalent of an RV to be provided by Japan, designed for long-duration expeditions far from the landing site. lunar rover Intuitive Machines is leading the Moon RACER team also selected for the LTV program. (credit: Intuitive Machines) Rovers as a service On April 3, NASA announced the winners of the long-awaited Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) services contract. NASA started planning for the LTV more than four years ago with a series of requests for information on how to procure a small, unpressurized lunar rover. NASA finally issued a request for proposals last May for the LTV competition, with nine companies ultimately bidding on the competition. “Think of a hybrid of the Apollo-style lunar rover that was driven by our astronauts and an uncrewed mobile science platform,” said Wyche. At a briefing at the Johnson Space Center, NASA said it selected teams led by Intuitive Machines, Lunar Outpost, and Venturi Astrolab for the LTV program. All three would get initial task orders for one-year feasibility studies leading to preliminary design reviews. NASA did not disclose the value of the task orders but Intuitive Machines said their order was worth $30 million; presumably the other two companies received similarly sized orders. The LTV is intended primarily to be driven by NASA astronauts during Artemis missions, but can also be teleoperated when astronauts are not present for science or other applications, either for NASA or other customers. “Think of a hybrid of the Apollo-style lunar rover that was driven by our astronauts and an uncrewed mobile science platform,” explained Vanessa Wyche, director of JSC, at the briefing. NASA officials at the briefing declined to go into details about the selection of the three companies, or even say how many proposals it received, claiming that they were still in a procurement “blackout” phase. That included no details about the potential value of the contracts each winning company received. NASA released last week the source selection statement for the LTV competition. It confirmed that nine companies submitted proposals and that three—from automotive technology company 3Sixty Degrees, space robotics company GITAI, and a company identified only as ORBIT—were deficient and not evaluated. NASA evaluated the remaining six proposals and concluded that three did not make the cut, but didn’t explain why. Those proposals came from Astrobotic, Blue Origin, and Leidos; the first two had not publicly announced plans to compete for an LTV contract but Leidos had announced its plans a year ago unveiling a rover design and a team that included, among others, NASCAR. At that briefing, the companies were circumspect about their rover designs, providing few technical details like range, speed, payload capacity, and the like. Intuitive Machines, for example, is leading a team for concept called Moon Reusable Autonomous Crewed Exploration Rover, or Moon RACER. That team includes aerospace companies Boeing and Northrop Grumman as well as automotive companies AVL and Michelin. Steve Altemus, CEO of Intuitive Machines, said at that briefing the company would be refining the Moon RACER design over the next year. “There are a number of the subsystems that we have put in as the initial design that will be traded,” he said, from power to suspension. The NASA source selection statement praised the Intuitive Machines design for including “a unique type of detachable trailer architecture” but warned that, when attached, it would prevent the rover’s robotic arm from collecting samples. The design had the lowest price for development and operations of the three, at just under $1.7 billion, but also the lowest “mission suitability” score—a metric that assesses technical and management factors—of 705 out of 1,000. “I want a set of those [Goodyear lunar rover] tires for my own offroad vehicle,” said Cyrus. Lunar Outpost’s Lunar Dawn rover also has a joint aerospace/automotive roster of teammates such as Lockheed Martin, MDA Space, General Motors, and Goodyear. Lunar Outpost itself is by far the smallest of those companies, a startup working on smaller robotic rovers before winning an LTV contract. NASA, in its assessment, gave Lunar Dawn a higher score at 863 but noted it had a higher price, at nearly $1.73 billion. It noted it featured “an advanced technology for energy storage that is a reasonable and feasible approach to greatly exceed the vehicle performance requirements while meeting battery safety requirements,” an apparent reference to GM’s electric-vehicle battery technology being incorporated into the design. Lunar Outpost CEO Justin Cyrus also highlighted the tires of the rover, being developed by Goodyear, suggesting there were terrestrial spinoffs possible. “I’m really excited to see how they can bring some of the technology that we’re using as part of LTVS back down here to Earth,” he said at the briefing. “I want a set of those tires for my own offroad vehicle.” lunar rover Astrolab is developing its FLEX rover for the LTV program. (credit: Astrolab) Both Lunar Dawn and Moon RACER look like one might expect from a slightly futuristic rover design; the illustrations they released looked like something you might expect to see on a sci-fi novel cover, if in some cases oddly streamlined for travel on an airless world. Astrolab’s Flexible Logistics and Exploration (FLEX) rover, though, is different: a boxy design with astronauts standing at the back, it looks less like a lunar rover than a lunar Zamboni. NASA, though, was clearly impressed with the design, giving it the highest mission suitability score of the three at 905. (It also had the highest price, at nearly $1.93 billion.) The source selection statement cited “multiple exceedances of required minimum requirements” in the design, like its ability to climb higher slopes. Astrolab also proposed an option to deliver the rover as a co-manifested payload on the SpaceX Starship lander for Artemis 4, whereas NASA required companies only to have the rover ready by the time Artemis 5 landed. “We’re coming into this with a lot of experience already with the technologies we’re planning to apply here,” Jaret Matthews, CEO of Astrolab, said at the briefing, noting the company has racked up thousands of hours on a terrestrial prototype of FLEX and planned to launch a robotic version on a commercial Starship mission as soon as 2026. “We intend to exceed NASA’s requirements.” NASA, though, appeared to raise questions about Astrolab’s ability to follow through: its assessment of the startup’s limited past performance in the source selection statement gave it “a Low level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.” Astrolab does not have any aerospace or automotive heavyweights on its team, working instead with companies like Axiom Space, which has a separate NASA contract to develop Artemis spacesuits. Nonetheless, Wyche noted in the source selection statement that all three companies had satisfied the minimum past performance requirements, which “gives me confidence that the teams are capable and possess the necessary experience to perform the work under the LTVS contract.” Like many other commercial initiatives, from cargo and crew transportation for the International Space Station to lunar landers, NASA is procuring a service, allowing the companies to offer the rovers to other customers, particularly when NASA is not using them on Artemis missions that, initially, will be annual expeditions spending a week on the surface. “We believe in the early phase that NASA will have to be somewhat of an anchor tenant,” Kearney said, with more commercial users coming later. That approach was intended to offer companies flexibility on how they achieved the technical requirements of the program. Lara Kearney, manager of NASA’s Extravehicular Activity and Human Surface Mobility program, noted that it was up to the companies to determine how they would provide ten years of rover services under the contract: one rover lasting the full ten years or a new rover every year for ten years. (None of the companies took either extreme: the source selection statement said that all three companies anticipated delivering one replacement rover over that ten-year period.) How that service model will work in terms of attracting other customers remains to be seen. At the briefing, Kearney said NASA expected initially to be the biggest customer, using the rover for up to 75% of the time. That fraction would decrease over the ten-year contract, she predicted, as more customers emerge. “We believe in the early phase that NASA will have to be somewhat of an anchor tenant,” she said. “We hope that, over the ten-year operating life of this vehicle, we can start bringing in more and more commercial requests as the market evolves.” The emphasis is on vehicle, singular: NASA, at the end of the year-long feasibility studies, plans to award a task order for development and demonstration of the rover to a single company. That is a break from past practices for services contracts where NASA has picked two or more companies. When NASA, three years ago, selected only SpaceX for its Human Landing System (HLS) program, the criticism, from industry and Congress, was strong enough that NASA went back and held a competition for a second lander. Kearney defended NASA’s approach at the briefing, saying it is “based on available budgets” but suggested there was room to modify it in the future. “We have a contract mechanism that will allow companies to continue to compete for future demonstrations and service periods,” she said. “Some of it comes down to just budgets. We have constrained budgets at the agency that we have to live within,” said Chris Hansen, deputy manager of the program, during another briefing last week at the 39th Space Symposium in Colorado Springs. “We maintain competition as far as we can into that.” lunar rover Toyota is working with the Japanese space agency JAXA on the Lunar Cruiser pressurized rover. (credit: Toyota) Lunar cruising At the April 3 briefing, one reporter asked how the LTV would fit into NASA’s plans given reports that Japan was developing a larger pressurized rover. Agency officials said that the proposed rover would offer a greater range than the LTV, but did not go into details, citing an announcement planned for the next week. That announcement came exactly a week later, when NASA and the Japanese government announced they had signed an agreement about additional cooperation on Artemis beyond Japanese contributions to the lunar Gateway. Under that agreement, the Japanese space agency JAXA would provide NASA a large pressurized rover in time for the Artemis 7 mission in the early 2030s. JAXA has been working with Toyota for several years on a rover concept they called “Lunar Cruiser.” The rover, powered by fuel cells, would support two astronauts for up to 30 days for extended journeys beyond the landing site; it would, in essence, be a mobile habitat, lasting for ten years. NASA, in turn, would deliver Lunar Cruiser to the surface of the Moon, using cargo versions of the HLS landers that SpaceX and Blue Origin are building. NASA would also provide two seats for Japanese astronauts on future Artemis lunar landing missions. While NASA has previously allocated seats on Gateway missions to JAXA as well as ESA, the Canadian Space Agency, and the United Arab Emirates, Japan is in line to be the first nation after the United States to land astronauts on the Moon as part of Artemis. Neither NASA nor JAXA, though, would say exactly when those Japanese astronauts would get to walk on the Moon. Asked about that at a briefing April 10, NASA administrator Bill Nelson offered a succinct response: “It depends.” “We’re all-in on this. It’s our main focus,” Matthews said of Astrolab. The implementing agreement that the two countries signed last week offered a range of criteria for crew assignments: “The timing of the flight opportunities will be determined by NASA in line with existing flight manifesting and crew assignment processes and will take into account program progress and constraints, MEXT’s [Japan’s Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology] request for the earliest possible assignment of the Japanese astronauts to lunar surface missions, and major PR [pressurized rover] milestones such as when the PR is first deployed on the lunar surface.” NASA associate administrator Jim Free said at the Space Symposium briefing a day after the announcement that it was premature to be thinking about what missions the Japanese astronauts would be assigned to, with no crews from any agency select for Artemis 3 and beyond. “Were a ways from assigning those folks today.” It’s likely, though, that at least one of the Japanese astronauts will fly before the rover itself. In December, Vice President Kamala Harris said at a National Space Council meeting that it was the goal of the US “to land an international astronaut on the surface of the Moon by the end of the decade.” lunar rover Apollo 16 astronaut Charlie Duke, wearing a VR headset, “drives” Astrolab’s lunar rover on display at a booth during the 39th Space Symposium last week. (credit: J. Foust) In the sprawling exhibit hall at Space Symposium, JAXA had a small scale model of Lunar Cruiser on display. At another booth, though, Astrolab had brought their full-sized terrestrial prototype of their FLEX rover. While stationary, visitors could climb aboard, don a VR headset, and “drive” the rover across the terrain of the lunar south polar region. “We’re all-in on this. It’s our main focus,” Matthews said of Astrolab at the booth. He noted the LTV version of FLEX will be slightly different from the one on display, he said slightly stretched out with larger tires, but otherwise the same core platform. “To have the validation of NASA is huge, to have the opportunity to work alongside them is huge,” he said of winning the LTV award. While he was talking, though, a different kind of validation took shape. An unexpected but very welcome visitor showed up at the booth: Charlie Duke, the Apollo 16 astronaut. Within moments, he was on FLEX, wearing the headset and driving across the Moon, 52 years after traveling around the Descartes Highlands on the Apollo lunar rover. The torch—or, perhaps, the keys to the rover—had been passed. Jeff Foust (jeff@thespacereview.com) is the editor and publisher of The Space Review, and a senior staff writer with SpaceNews. He also operates the Spacetoday.net web site. Views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author alone.

Nukes In Space-A Bad Idea In THe 1960s And Now

Starfish Prime Photograph taken from Honolulu of the aurora created by Starfish Prime. (credit: US government archive) Nukes in space: a bad idea in the 1960s and an even worse one now by Michael Mulvihill Monday, April 15, 2024 Bookmark and Share The Conversation The US and Japan are sponsoring a resolution for debate by the United Nations Security Council which, if passed, will reaffirm international commitments to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST) forbidding the deployment and use of nuclear weapons in space. I find these reports concerning but not surprising because nuclear anti-satellite weapons have been proposed since the Cold War in the 1960s. The call, headed by US ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield and Japan’s foreign minister Yoko Kamikawa, follows troubling reports that Russia could be developing a nuclear-capable anti-satellite weapon. As an expert on space and nuclear weapons, I find these reports concerning but not surprising because nuclear anti-satellite weapons have been proposed since the Cold War in the 1960s. So far, little is known about this weapon. The White House has said it is not operational and does not pose an immediate threat. Russian president Vladmir Putin, meanwhile, stated that Moscow had no intention to pursue a weapon that puts Russia in contravention of their commitment to the OST. The 1967 treaty is ratified by 114 nations including the US and Russia. The treaty’s Article IV, which bans the deployment of nuclear weapons in space, emerged from grave concerns about the impact of nuclear tests carried out in space by the US and Russia in the early 1960s, the most well-known of which is Starfish Prime, a nuclear test carried in low Earth orbit above the South Pacific in July 1962. Nuclear explosions in space I am a researcher at RAF Fylingdales, a ballistic missile early warning system (BMEWS) station on the north Yorkshire moors. I produced the Fylingdales Archive, which charts the station’s 60-year history of scanning space for signs of nuclear attack and tracking the increasing amount of satellites in low Earth orbit. The performance of BMEWS electronic warfare subsystems were tested during Starfish Prime to understand resilience against blackouts caused by nuclear explosions in space. Unlike nuclear explosions on Earth, where the energy released super-heats the atmosphere into a fireball, nuclear explosions in space release their energy as high-energy charged particles, X-rays, intense flows of neutrons, and electromagnetic pulse (EMP). EMP occurs when gamma rays from the nuclear explosion strip electrons from gases in the upper atmosphere. This blinds radar, knocks out communications, and destructively overloads power networks. Starfish Prime EMP was first observed during the Starfish Prime nuclear test. The test weapon was launched by a Thor missile from the Johnston Island in the north Pacific on July 8, 1962. Just after 11 pm Honolulu time, Starfish Prime detonated 400 kilometers above Johnston Island. The thermonuclear explosion had a yield of 1.45 megatons. This is 1,000 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. The impact of nuclear weapon testing in space galvanized the US and USSR governments to agree to the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, agreed to in August 1963, and the adoption of the OST in 1967. The flash from the detonation could be seen across the Pacific, filling the sky with brilliant aurora displays from Hawaii to New Zealand. Reports from Honolulu described the aurora as comprising blood red and pinks. But the pulse from the explosion was larger than anticipated. It caused electrical damage in Hawaii, nearly 1,000 kilometers away, by damaging electricity supplies, knocking out streetlights, disrupting telephone networks, and triggering burglar alarms. The impact on satellites in low Earth orbit was profound. High-energy particles from the explosion formed radiation belts around the Earth. These were made more intense by high-energy particles from Russian nuclear weapon tests in space above Kazakhstan, conducted in October 1962, merging with radiation from Starfish Prime. Over the following months, the radiation damaged and destroyed one-third of satellites in Earth orbit. This included AT&T’s Telstar satellite, which was launched two days after Starfish Prime on July 10, 1962. Telstar transmitted the first live transatlantic television pictures on July 23, 1962, before succumbing to Starfish Prime’s radiation the following November. The impact of nuclear weapon testing in space galvanized the US and USSR governments to agree to the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, agreed to in August 1963, and the adoption of the OST in 1967. What would happen today? During the Starfish Prime nuclear test there were just 22 active satellites in orbit. Today there are about 10,000 active satellites, with just over 8,000 in LEO. These support all aspects of life on Earth, including banking, healthcare, food supply, communications, navigation, climate monitoring, Earth science, and humanitarian aid. The US has far more satellites in orbit than any other nation. They include SpaceX’s Starlink satellites, which has been supporting the Ukrainian military in its combat operations against Russian forces. Consequently, the Starlink constellation of satellites is cited as a potential target for a Russian nuclear attack in space that would use EMP produced by a nuclear detonation to destroy the Starlink satellite constellation by frying the satellites’ electronics. The residual radiation, like Telstar, would over time destroy the electronics of surviving spacecraft, rendering their orbits dangerous to other satellites. Starfish Prime demonstrated that nuclear weapons in space have no military value and presents indiscriminate dangers to life on Earth as a result of damage to satellite infrastructure. But a nuclear attack on space infrastructure would also indiscriminately affect life on Earth. And it would have a disproportionate impact on vulnerable nations in the Global South, who rely the most on space systems for optimizing resources such as food security and water supply management. It would also destroy space systems of Russia’s ally China, rendering its Tiangong space station uninhabitable by damaging onboard life support systems. It’s also important to note that satellites of NATO member states are protected under Article 5 of the alliance’s charter, which compels members to respond collectively to an attack on any other member state. An attack could provoke retaliation against Russian military and strategic infrastructure on Earth with conventional weapons. But it would also risk further nuclear escalation. So, deploying nuclear weapons in space is not a new concept. But Starfish Prime demonstrated that it has no military value and presents indiscriminate dangers to life on Earth as a result of damage to satellite infrastructure. Juliana Seuss, a space security expert with the Royal United Services Institute, stresses that such a weapon could be used when Russia has “exhausted many other options, and when the loss of allies was no longer a relevant deterrent.” Instead, they feed a macabre political theatre of nuclear threat and innuendo, serving Russia by shoring up its fading space power. Meanwhile, in the US, these stories stoke nuclear anxiety and undermines confidence in the Biden Administration. This is why it was important for the UN to reaffirm their 50-year international commitment to the OST and mitigating wide-ranging harm from nuclear weapons in space. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Michael Mulvihill is Vice Chancellor Research Fellow at Teesside University. His research seeks to understand the way technologies of nuclear deterrent and space systems impact lived life on Earth.

Space Symposium report! I REALLY like Starship now!

Dream Chaser Launch Date! HUGE Space Stations! PLUS NEW Sierra Space CMO!

SpaceX prepares to launch the first stainless steel space station! Buil...

A new, nuclear powered plan to put humans on Mars from NASA and Lockheed...

See the HUGE Moon Rover specifically designed for Starship! Meet the As...

If Starship is too big for the market, why is SpaceX building a bigger o...

Elon Musk shares HUGE update on Starship program!

Film Reconassance Continues In The Digital Age

GAMBIT launch The GAMBIT satellite program used film to take high resolution images. GAMBIT continued in service until 1984, even though the KENNEN digital imagery satellite entered service in late 1976. GAMBIT still had advantages over KENNEN in the short term. Here a GAMBIT satellite is launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in 1968. (credit: Peter Hunter Collection) GAMBIT vs KENNEN: The persistence of film reconnaissance in the digital age by Dwayne A. Day Monday, April 8, 2024 Bookmark and Share One of the mysteries of the American reconnaissance satellite program during the Cold War was why, after the KENNEN digital near-real-time reconnaissance satellite entered service in late 1976, the United States continued to operate film-return reconnaissance satellites well into the 1980s. The last GAMBIT high-resolution reconnaissance satellite flew in 1984 and the last successful HEXAGON area-surveillance satellite also flew that year, although the final mission, launched in April 1986, ended in failure. What led officials at the National Reconnaissance Office, which developed and operated the satellites, to keep them in service even after a revolutionary new system had been developed? The new information now sheds light on why, even after KENNEN entered service, the United States continued operating film-based reconnaissance satellites into the first half of the 1980s. Part of the explanation has been known for some time. In January 1993, the House Armed Services Committee produced a report about intelligence successes and failures in the recently completed Operations Desert Shield/Storm.[1] In the report, one unnamed military commander bemoaned the lack of a retired, but then still-classified satellite system that could have provided wide-area coverage of the battlefield. That system was the HEXAGON reconnaissance satellite, which could have imaged nearly all of Iraq in a single orbital pass over the country. The report further stated, “The absence of wide-area coverage has been compared to ‘searching New York City by looking through a soda straw.’” The fact that military leaders were still feeling the absence of HEXAGON, which had last flown seven years earlier, indicated that its ability to photograph massive amounts of territory very quickly had not yet been equaled by the KENNEN and its descendants. But even as KENNEN was in development, there was a discussion within the United States intelligence community about the capability of KENNEN compared to GAMBIT for producing higher resolution photographs. Last month, the National Reconnaissance Office, which developed and operated all three satellite systems, declassified a document concerning this discussion. Although the exact capabilities of KENNEN and a few other details remain classified, the new information now sheds light on why, even after KENNEN entered service, the United States continued operating film-based reconnaissance satellites into the first half of the 1980s. U-2 briefing During the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, United States officials presented aerial reconnaissance photos of Soviet installations in Cuba at a United Nations assembly. In 1974, intelligence officials noted that reconnaissance photos capable of approximately 10-centimeter resolution (so-called very-high resolution, or VHR) might be necessary to provide information to the public or international leaders. (credit: UNC) Film in a digital age The HEXAGON satellite entered service in 1971. The first GAMBIT system entered service in 1963, with resolution of approximately 61 centimeters (two feet), meaning that at best it could detect two objects on the ground separated by about that distance. It was followed by an upgraded version in 1966 that had a mirror 1.12 meters in diameter. By December 1967, this GAMBIT-3 satellite had an average resolution around 74 centimeters (29 inches) and a best resolution around 38 centimeters (15 inches). By around 1973, the average resolution had improved to around 30 centimeters (one foot), with its best resolution still classified but obviously better than that. During development, KENNEN’s initial resolution goal was also about 30 centimeters. Although it had a much more powerful optical system—a reflecting mirror 2.4 meters in diameter, the same as the later Hubble Space Telescope—it operated in an orbit higher than GAMBIT in order to achieve a longer lifetime. Higher orbit meant a greater distance from the targets it photographed. In 1974, a Defense Intelligence Agency scientific advisory committee (SAC) assessed the value of even higher resolution then provided by GAMBIT or expected from KENNEN when it entered service in approximately two years. The panel’s final report has not been released, but a summary was produced before it was finished and has now been declassified.[2] One confusing aspect of the document is the use of the terms “ultra-high resolution” (UHR) and “very-high resolution” (VHR), which it apparently uses interchangeably. During the 1960s, “UHR” referred to resolutions of 30–60 centimeters, but by the 1970s the term apparently referred to resolution better than 30 centimeters. It is possible that the committee was discussing resolution goals that were 50% and 75% better than the current systems—in other words, 15 centimeters (six inches) for UHR, and 10 centimeters (four inches) for VHR. Other documents indicate that the Manned Orbiting Laboratory’s DORIAN optical system, canceled in 1969, had a 10-centimeter goal and was considered VHR. The report seemed to assume that based upon expected near-term developments, consistently better than 30-centimeter resolution was likely in the near future, and the SAC was evaluating the need for even higher resolution. The SAC also raised an interesting possibility that higher resolution might be necessary not for intelligence purposes, but public or diplomatic reasons. The scientific advisory committee examined past intelligence reports and could not find a significant number of uniquely important national strategic issues to justify very high resolution as opposed to a lower level. The national issues they considered were indications and warning, survivability of strategic forces, and verifiability of the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT). In all cases, a lower level of resolution—apparently what GAMBIT was then providing—was considered adequate. The committee also acknowledged that in some situations “satellite photography cannot provide the most critical intelligence,” so better resolution did not necessarily matter all the time. Although the GAMBIT capability seemed adequate, the SAC acknowledged that “significantly higher resolution may uncover important programs unknown to us because of our resolution limitation.” In addition, higher resolution might lead to earlier achieving the same assessments of strategic or tactical weapons capability, but with the added benefits of enabling the development of countermeasures to those weapons. Higher resolution could possibly be better capable of detecting and “reading through” camouflage. The SAC also raised an interesting possibility that higher resolution might be necessary not for intelligence purposes, but public or diplomatic reasons: “In some international confrontations it may be desirable to make a public release of imagery information or at least to make a convincing presentation to national leaders. In such cases, the desired resolution would have to be much higher than that required by photo interpreters.” The committee members may have remembered how, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the United States had revealed U-2 reconnaissance imagery at the United Nations to make the case that the Soviet Union was placing ballistic missiles in Cuba. The highest resolution requirement could provide “detailed information on a few tactical weapons, but the intelligence value of this information is uncertain,” the committee stated. Advanced GAMbIT-3 An early 1970s proposed upgrade to the GAMBIT-3 satellite would have used a larger mirror derived from the canceled Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) program. It would have provided significantly better resolution than the existing GAMBIT program, but would have cost $200 million to develop. It was rejected in favor of planned improvements to the existing GAMBIT-3 design. (credit: NRO) Improving GAMBIT with MOL At the time that the SAC made its evaluation, there were already improvements planned for the GAMBIT satellites. According to a former Kodak engineer who worked on GAMBIT’s optical system, every satellite was being improved over its predecessors due to new technology and operational experience. The scientific advisory committee noted that by 1976 (the year when KENNEN would be launched), GAMBIT would produce even better imagery than it did in 1974. The committee conceded that “after projected improvements in GAMBIT are made, little improvement is possible with existing optics unless improvements in smear rate and/or film are achieved.” GAMBIT served until 1984, indicating that it still maintained value over KENNEN for nearly a decade. GAMBIT also ultimately achieved the 10-centimeter goal. There was a potential major improvement to GAMBIT, but it required substantial investment. It would have essentially used the basic GAMBIT-3 camera system but equipped with a much larger mirror adapted from the canceled MOL program: “It is possible to increase the diameter of the optics in GAMBIT (now 44 inches [112 centimeters]) to 70 inches [178 centimeters] without a complete change in launch pad and vehicle. The changes would require at least $200 million non-recurring costs and would improve resolution up to a maximum of 60% better than Space Vehicle-48 GAMBIT.” Known as the “Advanced GAMBIT-3,” it would have required an upgraded Titan III launch vehicle, but would be an evolutionary development of the existing system. However, the panel did not recommend the major upgrade to GAMBIT, concluding that “there is not sufficient reason at this time to justify the initiation of a major new ultra-high resolution system.” (See “Advanced Gambit and VHR,” The Space Review, July 25, 2022). Rather than major changes to the hardware, the committee suggested that evolutionary improvements were possible, such as film technology in the areas of finer grain and lower noise conventional film, and in non-conventional film technology. The committee also suggested further investigation of atmospheric limitations on increased resolution systems. The latter study did occur: according to a former Kodak engineer, in the mid-1970s the Air Force conducted a test in the New Mexico desert that involved photographing ground targets from an aircraft and a GAMBIT satellite, and taking precise measurements of the reflectivity and size of those targets, as well as local atmospheric conditions, to develop a better understanding of how the atmosphere affected resolution. GAMBIT changes Partially-declassified chart showing improvement in GAMBIT satellite resolution over time. The average resolution line is blocked out by 1973. (credit: The GAMBIT Story, National Reconnaissance Office) Evolving GAMBIT and KENNEN Finally, the SAC concluded that both film and electronic-based systems “can evolve in the direction of UHR. The ultimate resolution within the next 10 years, and without very radical changes in technology or major changes in orbit altitudes, is likely to be about the same for both systems. A given resolution, however, will be obtained sooner with film-based systems, and at a lower cumulative cost. In addition, the required modifications to equipment involved in ground handling the output of improved film-based systems are going to be less expensive than those required by electronic-based systems.” The committee’s prediction was prescient, because GAMBIT served until 1984, indicating that it still maintained value over KENNEN for nearly a decade. GAMBIT also ultimately achieved the 10-centimeter goal. The scientific advisory committee did, however, conclude that the writing was on the wall for film-based high-resolution reconnaissance satellites. It stated that additional factors should also influence the comparison between systems: a. Timeliness of information b. Number of different target views c. Signal-to-noise ratio. The superiority of KENNEN, when available, over GAMBIT in these three factors is clear. The “signal-to-noise” ratio was a complicated subject, but essentially meant the ability to produce images of areas in low light. The early KENNEN satellites used linear photo-diodes. Photo-diodes, as of the early 1970s, had a signal-to-noise advantage about ten times greater than film, possibly even better by the time when the KENNEN first launched.[3] There are some hints that problems with KENNEN in the late 1970s and early 1980s may have further delayed the retirement of GAMBIT and HEXAGON, which still possessed capabilities beyond those of the digital system. A new technology was also becoming available: arrays of charge coupled devices (CCDs) that were incorporated into the satellite imaging sensor a few years later and are the predecessors of the imaging sensors in cellphones. By 1974, CCDs (1x64 pixel arrays) had reached a quantum efficiency of 35%, meaning that one out of three photons hitting the detector created an electronic signal. By comparison, film typically registers only 1 out of 200 photons (equivalent to a quantum efficiency of 0.5%). Everything else being equal, 1974-era CCDs achieved a signal-to-noise ratio 70 times higher than film. Even if the photo-diodes used on the early KENNEN satellites had a much lower quantum efficiency, the future of electro-optical imaging technology with the switch to CCDs was very promising, as the SAC report noted. CCDs would produce significantly better images in low-light-level situations like those found in the high latitudes of the Soviet Union during winter. They could also be used to peer into shadows—and the Soviet Union had many shadows to expose.[4] There are some hints that problems with KENNEN in the late 1970s and early 1980s may have further delayed the retirement of GAMBIT and HEXAGON, which still possessed capabilities beyond those of the digital system. But ultimately, the US intelligence community did not have the budget to support more than a single reconnaissance satellite program, and the film systems were eventually retired. Endnotes Intelligence successes and failures in Operations Desert Shield/Storm: Report of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the Committee on ... One Hundred Third Congress, first session, January 1, 1993. Memorandum for the Director, National Reconnaissance Office, “SAC [Defense Intelligence Agency Scientific Advisory Committee] Imagery Panel Report,” June 26, 1974. [Declassified January 12, 2024.] Leslie C. Dirks and Edmund Nowinski, Technical Memorandum No. 87, “A Comparison of Silver Halide Film and Linear Arrays of Solid State Photodiodes as the Image Transducer for a Near Real Time Readout System,” January 27, 1971. Direct comparisons are difficult. CCDs also have photon noise from “thermal dark current” (hence the requirement to cool CCDs for sensitive measurements) and read-out noise, while film comes with finite grain size and highly non-linear response to light. Dwayne A. Day can be reached at zirconic1@cox.net.

The Strategic Implications Of China Winning The Space Race Part Two

space guard rescue A futuristic Space Guard rescue scenario. (credit: James Vaughan, used with permission) Strategic implications of China winning the space rescue race (part 2) by Benjamin J. Johnis and Peter Garretson Monday, April 8, 2024 Bookmark and Share [Part 1 was published last week.] Relationships between personnel recovery and policy Event history analysis of policy changes Recent conflicts between the United States and China regarding multi-domain strategies are trending towards a “Grey Rhino” event. Most have heard of a “Black Swan” event where high-impact incidents occur that are nearly impossible to predict. The Grey Rhino event is also high-impact and highly probable, despite repetitive and neglected warnings.[1] The United States recognized that immediate space policy and capability development needs must be addressed to mitigate the fallout from high-impact events in the space domain. The reinstatement of the National Space Council, the United States Space Command, the Space Force, and the Artemis Accords makes it clear that America focuses on maintaining dominance and leadership in space. Despite these efforts, a space isolation event quickly escalates to a Grey Rhino event if policymakers fail to address immediate legislative and funding needs to develop an in-space rescue program. US personnel rescue (PR) policy tends to be reactive, with shifts only after significant events that shake national leaders. Trend analysis suggests the US government has yet to prioritize space isolation as a national concern because there hasn't been a catastrophic event in recent history. A space isolation event quickly escalates to a Grey Rhino event if policymakers fail to address immediate legislative and funding needs to develop an in-space rescue program. Retired Colonel Lee Pera from the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency describes the strategic importance of major PR events that led to reactive but necessary policy changes. During the Korean War, “prisoners succumbed to brainwashing and were used by the enemy as propaganda tools or for political exploitation. Debriefings and analyses determined that 192 people were chargeable with serious offenses against their fellow prisoners… President Eisenhower signed Executive Order 10631 to establish the code of conduct for prisoners of war (POW) or those who must survive, evade, resist, or escape (SERE). This led to the birth of all SERE Schools across the DoD.”[2] The DoD later established the Joint Personnel Recovery Center concept during the Vietnam War to manage the sheer volume of isolated personnel, missing in action, and POWs. Operation Eagle Claw is the most influential PR mission in history. In 1980, a special joint task force was assembled to recover American hostages in Iran. The mission was an utter failure, eventually leading to the Goldwater Nichols Act. Congress directed a re-organization of the military, including adopting the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). This new organization would oversee the joint task force responsible for executing this future mission set. Operation Desert Shield/Storm led to the development of the Defense POW/Missing Personnel Office and what would eventually become the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency. Each of these events was considered a Black Swan. The shocking revelations resulted in policy shifts after the event because the outcome was largely unpredictable. If we intend to prevent Grey Rhino events, it is prudent to follow the most successful model based on historical precedent. Presidential Policy Directive (PPD)-30 is objectively the most proactive PR policy in practice to date. The War on Terror significantly influenced US policy, forcing the government to address an increased hostage threat abroad. National Security Policy Directive (NSPD)-12 shaped the “whole of government approach” to PR, which was replaced by PPD-30, directing the formation of a Hostage Recovery Group and Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell.[3] These elements synchronize efforts to respond rapidly to any American hostage crisis. This group characterizes the conditions and validates the event so the National Security Council can advise the President on a course of action. The directive addresses future contingencies that significantly affect the ability to execute national security strategy while refraining from dictating authorities to a particular capability, be it civil, diplomatic, or military. The Hostage Recovery Group weighs all relevant factors rapidly, minimizing arbitrary bureaucracy and red tape delays. Evolutions in policies like PPD-30 will prepare the government to address space isolation scenarios. figure Personnel Recovery Options Capabilities and Methods (credit: JP 3-50) Predictions for future events (conclusions) Grey Rhino events are predictable and, therefore, preventable. Black Swan event models help address future operating environments by identifying the independent variables that historically result in reactive policies. Humans rarely operate in the space domain, so data is limited to the imagination, national interests, and game theory, with decision trees branched from historical terrestrial conflicts. National power extends into space in dramatic fashions that inspire fictional novels and media. National decisions on Earth often directly affect relations in space and vice versa. The following scenarios are a worthy thought experiment and should inform our leaders of potential catalysts that lead to reactive PR policy shifts. The following scenarios and figures provide thought provoking inspirations to predictable errors in planning that are not addressed in current U.S. policy. Military strategists predicted these scenarios to explore policy, manpower, and technology gaps that could result in loss of life and undesirable national strategic consequences. Near-term space isolation scenario 1 figure Artemis astronauts use LunaNet to communicate on the lunar surface. (credit: NASA) Artemis 5 deploys astronauts to the lunar surface for a two-week mission. Astronauts service a remote lunar critical infrastructure site beyond the reach of their habitat vehicle. A distress beacon alerts NASA mission control two hours after the first transmission, immediately triggering search and rescue efforts. The command-and-control element cannot communicate directly with the astronauts and cannot geo-locate their position due to a lack of position, navigation, timing, and communications infrastructure. The remaining astronauts must initiate a search party, further exposing more personnel to the hazards that caused the crisis of the isolated personnel. The DoD is unable to support with technical capability or rescue forces. The tragic loss of life results in global embarrassment and loss of public support for space exploration and immediately triggers a congressional investigation into NASA and Space Force funding. Congress threatens to withhold upcoming appropriations pending a presidential review of in-space rescue requirements to prevent another catastrophe. The President issues a PPD-30 addendum to incorporate a space contingency action group tasked to advise the National Security Council and the President on courses of action to resolve space emergencies through the whole of government approach. Long-term space isolation scenario 2 figure Cislunar timeline. (Credit: ULA / Tory Bruno) Commercial partners developing a lunar ice processing plant operate in a deep crater. US astronauts receive an alert from mission control, relayed by commercial entities. Astronauts respond to the scene expeditiously, yet they cannot access the isolated personnel due to a lack of high-angle equipment and rescue training. The DoD cannot support with trained personnel recovery forces, and NASA does not have a contingency response force to assist. Chinese delegates coordinate with the U.S. State Department to assist using organized, trained, and equipped space rescue forces. China recovers the American commercial engineers and returns them to Earth safely. The inability to support US commerce results in global embarrassment and loss of leadership in space exploration, raising the cost of lunar commerce exponentially. China establishes itself as the space rescue lead for all humanity and secures international support to ensure safe lunar commerce. Several nations secure treaties and trade deals with China, including expanding the “Belt and Road” initiative and space exploration agreements. Nefarious actor space isolation scenario 3 figure Astronaut in crater (credit: NASA) Country X contests territorial waters on Earth and the exploitation of lunar ice in a resource-rich region. US astronauts find their vehicle has been tampered with and become stranded in their mobile habitat. The communications system is not operational due to radio frequency jamming. Country X invokes the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 to render aid to an astronaut in distress. They tow the stranded space vehicle back to their lunar base, where astronauts are detained and subtly interrogated, pilfering the vehicle for intelligence and reverse-engineering data. Country X publishes the story to the world as saviors of isolated astronauts. Country X occupies and declares a non-interference and “safety-zone” claim over the natural resource, denying access to the region and imposing high costs on the US, which cannot continue operations without deploying more capabilities and personnel. The US intelligence community lacks the resources to attribute nefarious activities to Country X, as they cannot assign intent without space domain awareness capabilities in the region. The access to water accelerates Country X’s space program, allowing them to conduct human spaceflight on Mars ahead of NASA’s timeline. Diplomatic relations suffer between the two countries as accusations and frustrations turn violent in contested areas on Earth. Conclusions and Recommendations Recommendations for action figure Futuristic Space Guard Cutter (credit: James Vaughan, used with permission) Early findings from the AFIT research project on Lunar Search and Rescue provide a framework for a realistic path toward the whole of government approach to space crisis mitigation. NASA, by extension, is acting as the US State Department representative in space. There is no embassy or sovereign territory in space or on the Moon, leaving NASA in a precarious situation. Special Operations Command was established to accomplish the most challenging missions. The command is uniquely capable of supporting “boots on ground” missions for space-related contingencies of the future. The model for DoS-DoD coordination to conduct PR in support of Americans has matured since PPD-30. PPD-30-based Presidential-level directives to address space-related crisis response efforts fit seamlessly into the PR community of effort. Like PPD-30, the space contingency action group would prepare various civil, diplomatic, and military options to resolve the crisis. This plan should consider extending dual authorities to a space entity to employ a Coast Guard-like role in space,[4] capable of operating similarly to the terrestrial maritime domain. This policy would provide the authorities and permissions for government entities to coordinate, prepare, plan, and execute contingency responses. A policy of this scale would affect the strategic guidance documents that affect the military process and its many interactions, as described in the figure below. figure Process Interactions (credit: CJCSI 5123.01I[)[5] Some things have already become clear, and provide opportunities for Action Officers in the White House, OSD, Joint Staff, Department of the Air Force, Space Force staff, and USSPACECOM staff. The following actions should be completed sufficiently in advance of Artemis 3 to ensure a rudimentary capability and plan, from which more mature capabilities can develop over time: NASA can accelerate things by establishing a requirement by requesting assistance through formal letterhead to USSPACECOM and USSF. Within the Executive Office of the President (OEP), any modification to the National Space Policy should formally task the DoD with in-Space PR. Presidential Policy Directive 30, Hostage Recovery Activities,[6] should be updated to reflect in-space scenarios. The Unified Command Plan (UCP) should specify PR responsibilities for USSPACECOM. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) should classify lunar sites as critical infrastructure and coordinate with NASA and USSPACECOM to protect strategic propellant reserves for emergency use in similar capacity as the DoE managed Strategic Petroleum Reserve established in 1975.[7] Within OSD, the Guidance for the Employment of the Force (GEF) should specify an end state that ensures safety and the ability of the United States to rescue and recover its own personnel. An updated 5100.01 should specify in-space PR for both USSPACECOM and USSF. DoDD 3100.10 should be updated to specify PR and SAR responsibilities. Within the Joint Staff, the Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan (JSCP) should direct USSPACECOM to develop a Concept Plan (CONPLAN) for PR. JP3-14 should be updated to consider in-space PR & SAR. The Chairman Joint Chief of Staff Instruction 3440.01E directs an architecture that serves the terrestrial demands but leaves little room for authorities to expand into in-space rescue. The DoD tasked to support NASA with land, maritime, and air assets, 3440.01E requires the inclusion of space capability if the DoD maintains intragovernmental primacy over human spaceflight recovery. Within USSPACECOM, the J5 should initiate an initial capabilities document (ICD) so that in-space PR can be reflected in the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) and formally recognized by the JROC at least a year in advance of Artemis-3. USSPACECOM should task USSF to develop Concepts of Operations, supporting technologies, and begin developing capabilities. The final recommendation stems from PR lessons learned. Special Operations Command was established to accomplish the most challenging missions. The command is uniquely capable of supporting “boots on ground” missions for space-related contingencies of the future. The command organizes, trains, and equips forces to perform “SOF Peculiar” tasks supporting geographic combatant commanders and national missions. AFIT research revealed that a space rescue force requires skill sets such as military planning, parachuting, dive operations, emergency medicine, high angle rescue, technical extrication/extraction, confined space rescue, and SERE/Reintegration. Space rescue investment mitigates space isolation risk and provides opportunities to lead Artemis nations and commercial partners. SOCOM is well suited to provide command and control of a crisis response force, deployable to any region of the world as well as XGEO, cislunar, lunar, or beyond, at the pace of technology and human exploration. SOCOM could exercise close relationships with the proposed space contingency action group to expedite crisis response to any location requiring human-based kinetic interdiction, including terrestrial and in-space rescue. Space Command would require a Theater of Special Operations Command component (see figure below) or representative liaison staff to coordinate rapid deployment and disposition of forces for this concept to operate smoothly. figure Notional Theater Command Structure (credit: JP 3-05) Summary The US National Space Strategy establishes America’s intent to lead in the space domain, mirroring its role on Earth. America responds to crises around the world without faltering. Space rescue investment mitigates space isolation risk and provides opportunities to lead Artemis nations and commercial partners. A well-trained and equipped rescue force sustains the US commitment to ensuring safe navigation in space, accelerating commercial investment, and ultimately strengthening US national instruments of power. While Black Swan events are relatively difficult to identify, Grey Rhino events result from neglect. This policy analysis provides approaches to prevent such catastrophes, shaping governing documents to address space isolation as a national priority. American personnel recovery policy is traditionally reactive, yet they are often due to Black Swan events. Space isolation is a genuine threat that policymakers have an opportunity to mitigate by endorsing proactive decisions before national risk assumption in cislunar space. Proactivity is the key to avoiding earth-shattering dilemmas that negatively affect our nation's ability to project power, liberate the oppressed, and proliferate peaceful societal development through ethical and economic growth. References Singleton, J. (2020). Squadron Officer School Study on Space Rescue. Pera, C. L., Miller, P. D., & Whitcomb, D. (2012). “Personnel Recovery Strategic Importance and Impact,” Air & Space Power Journal | (Vol. 83), November-December 2012. White House, “Presidential Policy Directive (PPD-30) -- Hostage Recovery Activities,” Obama White House Archives, June 24, 2015. Michael R. Sinclair, “To Fight to Save * … in Space: A Legal Argument that a Space “Coast Guard” Is Increasingly Necessary for Effective Twenty-First Century Space Governance,” Air & Space Law 43, no 465, 2018. Department of Defense, “CJCSI 5123.01I Charter Of The Joint Requirements Oversight Council And Implementation Of The Joint Capabilities Integration And Development System,” Joint Staff Portal, October 30, 2021. White House, “Presidential Policy Directive (PPD-30) -- Hostage Recovery Activities,” Obama White House Archives, June 24, 2015. Tory Bruno, Erica Otto, Will Clifton, Austin Schmitt, Erin Lococo, John Sanders, John Reed, Bernard Kutter, “Creation of a U.S. Strategic Propellant Reserve,” United Launch Alliance, September 7, 2022. The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official guidance or position of the United States Government, Department of Defense, United States Air Force, or United States Space Force. Benjamin Johnis (Master Sergeant, USAF) is a PhD student at the Air Force Institute of Technology and manages the Personnel Recovery Program at Special Operations Command Pacific Headquarters. Peter Garretson is a senior fellow in defense studies at the American Foreign Policy Council. Note: we are now moderating comments. There will be a delay in posting comments and no guarantee that all submitted comments will be posted.